If you think the primary people who use the label 'neoconservative' are the people who are labelled 'neoconservative', you are delusional.

I don't and I am not. I have already stated that the term is meaningless as near as I can tell. My problem is that this author goes on at great length in an effort, I will give him the benefit of the doubt here, to make a point. I am just having trouble figuring out what that point is.

I've only now finished Josh Muravchik's dissection of the neocon conspiracy buffoonery that overcame so many otherwise intelligent people in recent times. It's on the web at Commentary's web site, but for a fee.

It is an amazingly well done piece, much better than my own three part opus on the subject, I hate to say, though mine gave more historical background. Here's something I didn't know. The 1996 "paper" allegedly prepared by influential neocons which advocated the toppling of Iraq for Israel's sake, was not a paper at all. Rather, it was merely little more than the collected minutes from a conference. From Murachik's piece, discussing how the BBC misused the "report":

The BBC claimed to have found a smoking gun one that others have pounced on as well. Bradshaw "In 1996, a group of neocons wrote a report intended as advice for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benny [sic] Netanyahu. It called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." Perle and Douglas Feith, the latter now a high official in Bush's Defense Department, were among those who had "contributed" to this paper.

Yet even if the BBC had characterized the document accurately, it would not imply what the BBC (and not the BBC alone) suggested it did. The Americans whose names appeared on the paper had long sought Saddam's ouster, an objective that was already, in 1996, the declared policy of the Clinton administration. It would thus make more sense to say that, in preparing a paper for Netanyahu, they were trying to influence Israeli policy on behalf of American interests than the other way around. Indeed, most Israeli officials at that time viewed Iran, the sponsor of Hizballah and Hamas, as a more pressing threat to their country than Iraq, and (then as later) would have preferred that it be given priority in any campaign against terrorism.

To make matters worse, the BBC fundamentally misrepresented the nature of the document. Contrary to Bradshaw's claim, no "group of neocons" had written it. Rather, it was the work of a rapporteur summarizing the deliberations of a conference, and was clearly identified as such. The names affixed to it were listed as attendees and not as endorsers, much less authors.

Posted at 10:21 AM

('The Corner' in National Review, September 28, 2003) http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

Well, a lot of people worked on inventing the term which they apply to themselves. This author applies it to himself. I am just trying to get one of them to tell me what it means. This author hasn't, and this article belongs in the garbage heap. Personally I thought AEI had higher standards.

The author pointed out something you either missed or have chosen to ignore. The term was pushed on people who for years rejected it. Now there are some who embrace it, and some who still turn their heads cockeyed with the 'what you talkin' about, Willis?' look.

I think if you want a good definition of what neoconservatism really is, SauronOfMordor had a pretty fair one above.

What, in 50 words, or less, defines a neo-conservative? Three principles:

American religious, political, and economic freedom is at the forefront of human advancement and transcends cultural boundaries. Freedom abroad translates to safety and prosperity for Americans. America's global power should be used to promote and defend this freedom. In short: American democracy is the future.

And neocons by and by are not all fiscal conservatives either. Only common theme appears to me to be Israel, for good or bad.

It's hard to be a fiscal conservative when the goal is military intervention and nation building; that kind of stuff doesn't come cheap. And while I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is all about Israel or done for exclusively for Israel's benefit as some paleo's suggest, it does seem that many neocons fervently support Israel to the point that they are blind to the other interests that U.S. has in the region. If you're not 100% behind the right-wing Likud Party's agenda, I don't think they allow you into the neocon cabal.

"No, I missed it because I understand that paleoconservatism is not traditional conservatism. Paleoconservatism is younger and newer even than neoconservatism. Hence your confusion."

Re your post to Andy Jackson, no one here is confused, many are curious. Neocon, paleo, and who knows how many more my curioisity via interest is limited, but what is Your definition, if you will, of a "conservative"?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.